Forcing Pass Systems

[hrothgar]

As, alas, happens virtually every time HUMs and weak opening systems are discussed, there is lots of heat and not nearly as much light. A few thoughts from someone who, as Fred would say, has spent too much of his time on such systems to become as good a player as he could have, but who still derives enormous pleasure from bidding theory:

 

 

...

 

For most system designers, a strong pass is a consequence of the desire to play limited openings on these 8-12 HCP hands. Despite the flaws in passing with strong hands (leaving the partnership open to competitive disruption, for example, when no suit has been identified), this has been judged better than alternatives such as lowering the requirements of standard opening bids, making them 8-22 HCP.

 

David

wow...

 

Very nice post

[H_KARLUK]

I do hope somebody helps. Firstly please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks.

 

I think it was in th early 1980s, forcing-pass methods were highly popular. I was buying monthly English Bridge Magazines and Bridge Books. Hard years to follow new ideas, snail mail age. Anyway at least was happy trying to fix double dummy corner problems.

 

Started in Poland ? Then gained popularity in NZ and Australia?

 

At first sight I took very risky to open with a zero especially at vulnerability. As far as I remember the opponents got to use its bidding system only if it dealt and opened immediately. Maybe many pairs enjoyed that system allowed about twice th system "bandwidth". Who knows, it was fun for some players to put th opponents in highly unusual situations in their repertoire.

 

Not sure but either towards th end of th 1980s or in 1990, th WBF decided to bar and ban except in long matches of world championship.

 

2008 soon ends. From start point nearly 28 years passed. Say ban started in 1990. So 18 years passed. May someone tells me the benefit of such a discussion? Do we really all have credit to WBF?

 

Are there anyone who can lift this topic to water cooler please?

[shevek]

Forcing pass is like the latvian gambit. It may or may not be theoretically unsound but it needs quite a lot of preparation to defend against it. If you don`t prepare, you will sometimes lose despite being better in other parts of the game.

 

This is 100 % the same with a FP system: Maybe it has no merrits, but you need an awful lot of preparation to defend against it. So whoever claims that he does not want himself or the LOL to spend much time in preparation against this method has a fair point. It needs time.

 

The chess players live with this problem and have a more or less vague idee what they will do when this opening is played- or they even have a defence memorized.

 

The bridge players decided to ban the lativian gambit instead of working on a defence.

 

Freds analogy was right too: If you use the given "vocabulary"  with a total different meaning, this is not understandable for the opponents.

 

 

 

This is a real tricky issue and I belive that anybody who tries to paint black/white pictures will not be able to see the beauty of the rainbow.  B)

*What is the object of playing a gambit opening?... To acquire a reputation of being a dashing player at the cost of losing a game.

 

**The beauty of a move lies not in its' appearance but in the thought behind it.

 

***One doesn't have to play well, it's enough to play better than your opponent.

 

MD. Siegbert Tarrasch (March 5, 1862 – February 17, 1934) was a leading chess player

 

 

Days are passing quickly. I still have no idea why HUM professionals do not object WBF policy.

 

OTOH is it really bad to arrange competitions between stickers assigned by WBF?

A final somewhere and sometime hard ?

 

So we can see if only to play a HUM sys enough to win or not.

Aargh the Latvian.

 

One guy in Perth loved it so much, he would open E3 as white, hoping for

e3 - e5 - e4 -nf6 - f4!

 

I like it! He would have made an imaginitve bridge player.

 

Nick

[fred]

As, alas, happens virtually every time HUMs and weak opening systems are discussed, there is lots of heat and not nearly as much light.  A few thoughts from someone who, as Fred would say, has spent too much of his time on such systems to become as good a player as he could have, but who still derives enormous pleasure from bidding theory:

 

 

...

 

For most system designers, a strong pass is a consequence of the desire to play limited openings on these 8-12 HCP hands.  Despite the flaws in passing with strong hands (leaving the partnership open to competitive disruption, for example, when no suit has been identified), this has been judged better than alternatives such as lowering the requirements of standard opening bids, making them 8-22 HCP.

 

David

wow...

 

Very nice post

Agree.

 

Even if he is not as good a player as he could have been, he is an excellent writer B)

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[Free]

2008 soon ends. From start point nearly 28 years passed. Say ban started in 1990. So 18 years passed. May someone tells me the benefit of such a discussion? Do we really all have credit to WBF?

 

Are there anyone who can lift this topic to water cooler please?

First of all, they're not banned, but restricted heavily.

 

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

 

Third: people have been working centuries at laws and regulations in regular life, and they keep changing. Why would regulations never change in bridge? Just because some philosophy is currently accepted? Perhaps some people at the top suddenly get an open mind about this and decide to allow HUMs. You never know...

[csdenmark]

I do hope somebody helps. Firstly please correct me if i am wrong. Thanks.

 

I think it was in th early 1980s, forcing-pass methods were highly popular. I was buying monthly English Bridge Magazines and Bridge Books. Hard years to follow new ideas, snail mail age. Anyway at least was happy trying to fix double dummy corner problems.

 

Started in Poland ? Then gained popularity in NZ and Australia?

 

The first edition of 'Introduction to weak opening systems - Regres system' is from 1974. Lukasz Slawinski/Stanislaw Ruminski.

 

I have no idea whether the Aussies was before or not. But that was the days of Sharif Bridge Circus and Dallas Aces started.

 

Much creativity in bridge those days.

[JanM]

Thank you for a thoughtful and clear post. I'll try to respond in order and without cutting out too much.

 

Destructive vs constructive methods

Jan Martel (it’s good to have people in such positions as hers participating in discussions like this)

Just as devising systems appeals to some, devising defenses has always been interesting to me. Guess that's why I was a good tax lawyer B). I do want to be clear though, that I'm not really a "regulator" - I may be better able than some of the forum regulars to get regulators to listen to me, but I don't make the rules.

argued that “Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.”  (Digression: In Australia there has been a heated debate this year about whether exhibited photos of a nude, pubescent, teenage girl are art or pornography.)

 

All right, perhaps that was too flip. We've all been down this road so many times that we tend to get tired of repeating the same things over and over. But even you and other proponents of a strong pass system (and I am deliberately saying that and not "weak opening" - I don't have a problem with a system where opening bids are defined as 8-12 HCPs, it's the openings that are defined as 0-7, maybe 8, any shape that for me make strong pass so unusual and difficult to deal with), admit that the Fert bid, whatever it is, is not a constructive bid - it's there to allow you to have other bids, specifically pass, that don't include those hands, and as such you'll say it's constructive because it allows the other things. But as someone pointed out earlier, the reason to use 1♠ or 2♣ instead of P or 1♣ for the fert is to cause the opponents problems. There isn't any constructive reason to open 1♠ on hands in the 0-7 HCP range that aren't suitable for other bids. Similarly, a 2♥ opening that shows a weak 2 in either hearts or spades is a REALLY terrible bid for constructive bidding (I suspect that is the main reason that its proponents gave up on it). But it's also a terrible bid for the opponents to deal with (more about that later).

 

I think that reflects a bias about how one should play “a good game of bridge” ...

Neither the bridge scoring table nor the rules of bridge place a premium on one method beating absolute par over the other.  So, to claim that so-called constructive bidding (aiming to reach our best contract) is intrinsically better than so-called destructive bidding (aiming to disrupt the opponents from reaching their best contract) is a non-bridge judgement.  However, it is a widely held view and has been a critical factor influencing regulators.

 

As I said, I'm not a regulator, but I suspect you're right. Maybe it would be possible to have a parallel universe where this wasn't the prevailing view, but we live in this universe, and you're not likely to change that view.

 

Why are some things prohibited?

Jan also wrote “Forcing pass is barred because to play a forcing pass, you have to play some fert and ferts just cannot be defined adequately and therefore aren't allowed.”

 

Ferts can be clearly defined: when I play one we explain it to the opponents as “0-7HCP, excludes hands suitable for openings of 2M+, might be bad 8HCP BAL, excludes shapely 7 HCP hands with good suits or good controls”.  What that does not do is provide the opponents with the familiar things they are used to having as a basis for defensive bidding (a known suit or, after a natural notrump opening, sufficient high cards in opener’s hand so as to make bidding game or slam by the non-notrumpers relatively unlikely).  If that’s what regulators mean then let them be explicit as to the reason for the decision.

 

The problem is that most players who use these bids aren't going to be able to explain when they will choose to open one and when they will choose to open an alternative. Of course, that's worst when they have the option of passing, but it arises when they have 2 or more 0-7 bids available also. If you are going to be completely honest, you know that in choosing between, say, 1♦ showing 0-7 with 4 or more spades, and 1♠ showing 0-7 any, you'll sometimes open 1♠ even with a hand that has 4 spades. When? It will depend on lots of things - vulnerability, seat, state of the match, your judgment about how likely these particular opponents are to try to "get" you, where your few honors are located, who knows what else. It's those sorts of things that you aren't going to be able to define adequately. Or at least, that never are adequately defined when people submit descriptions of "destructive" bids.

 

Impossible to devise defences?

Jan also wrote “The other major thing that is disallowed is a weak bid that might or might not contain length in the suit opened. That type of method is impossible to develop a defense to, so it is explicitly barred.”

 

Here in Australia lots of LOLs use such methods (e.g. 2H/2S/2N as 55 two suiters rank-colour-odd) and defend against them regularly.  I agree that there is no really good defence but the same is true of lots of bids that take away space.  (Simple example: I’m happy to compete on shape alone over their strong NT but I do so knowing that it makes it very difficult for us to bid games with much confidence if my 2S bid can be Qxxxxx x Qxxx xx or two aces stronger.)

 

The problem is that when the opening bid might contain the suit opened, you can't safely Pass on some of the hands you want to bid with. And of course, you don't have a cue bid. Sure, I have a defense to CRASH openings. But it's long, complicated and not terribly good. I certainly wouldn't try to memorize it.

 

What is harder to defend against is 2H showing a weak two in hearts or in spades (or analogous openings) but, again, a reasonable defence is available: assume they have the suit they bid.

 

The problem with that is that they may (I say may, because this particular bid is one that the opponents NEVER adequately describe) be more likely to have spades than hearts when they open 2♥. That's because if the responder tends to bid 2♠ with hands with no preference between the majors, they're going to have to play in 3♥ when opener has hearts, but can play in 2♠ when opener has spades, so opener may want to have something that looks more like a 3♥ bid to open 2♥, but be willing to have a 2♠ bid. On the other hand, if responder is going to tend to pass with hands with no preference, opener is more likely to have hearts. When this bid was actually played in the Bermuda Bowl, the proponents were unable to tell us what responding hands would pass and what responding hands would bid 2♠ - that's what I mean by the bid isn't adequately described. And although I have a defense for this bid, it's one that is completely inadequate, despite the fact that we spent a lot of time on it. (Surprisingly, the bid came up only once in the Bermuda Bowl final, and resulted in a big pick up for the US for a strange reason - after 2♥-P-P, the US player had a balanced hand with okay stoppers in both Majors but better in one than the other (sorry, I don't remember exactly what the hand was) and bid 2NT, his partner raised to 3 which made easily. At the other table, after 2 of opener's real Major-P-P, balancer didn't think his stopper was good enough, so they missed the game).

 

Is having a defence to unusual bidding an integral part of the game?

 

I think this is probably the core of the whole argument we have over this. I may find it fun to play with figuring out defenses, just as I actually enjoyed parsing the Internal Revenue Code. But I know that most people don't enjoy that. And I don't think we should require things that most people don't enjoy.

[hrothgar]

The problem is that most players who use these bids aren't going to be able to explain when they will choose to open one and when they will choose to open an alternative. Of course, that's worst when they have the option of passing, but it arises when they have 2 or more 0-7 bids available also. If you are going to be completely honest, you know that in choosing between, say, 1♦ showing 0-7 with 4 or more spades, and 1♠ showing 0-7 any, you'll sometimes open 1♠ even with a hand that has 4 spades. When? It will depend on lots of things - vulnerability, seat, state of the match, your judgment about how likely these particular opponents are to try to "get" you, where your few honors are located, who knows what else. It's those sorts of things that you aren't going to be able to define adequately. Or at least, that never are adequately defined when people submit descriptions of "destructive" bids.

Sorry Jan, none of these issues are specific in any way shape or form to forcing pass systems.

 

I agree completely that if you encounter specific pairs who practice poor disclosure this needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Regretfully, I'm left with the distinct impression that you and others fixate on certain examples in order to support a pre-conceived agenda.

 

Case in point: The Jeff Rubens developed a hand evaluation algorithm called "Caution, Complex Competer Count" (CCCC) that was designed to approximate the hand evaluation style that Edgar Kaplan applied at the table. (Kaplan commented that the CCCC did an OK job; however, he also noted that individuals sholdn't try to use this algorithm at the table because it was much to complex)

 

Simply put, Kaplan was incapable of providing a compete description of his hand evaluation methods; yet somehow he was still permitted to play bridge. This occured because people understood that perfect disclosure is a theoretical goal, but not a practical consideration. We accept and understand that disclosure will, by necessity, often be approximate. We hope for more, but accept what is practical.

[blackshoe]

2008 soon ends. From start point nearly 28 years passed. Say ban started in 1990. So 18 years passed. May someone tells me the benefit of such a discussion? Do we really all have credit to WBF?

 

Are there anyone who can lift this topic to water cooler please?

First of all, they're not banned, but restricted heavily.

 

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

 

Third: people have been working centuries at laws and regulations in regular life, and they keep changing. Why would regulations never change in bridge? Just because some philosophy is currently accepted? Perhaps some people at the top suddenly get an open mind about this and decide to allow HUMs. You never know...

Agree with your second and third points, but as to the first:

 

WBF defines "Forcing Pass" (or whatever you want to call it) as a HUM, yellow sticker, system. It is allowed only in Category 1 events (i.e., the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup), and banned in all others.

ACBL prohibits it at all levels.

EBU prohibits it at all levels.

New Zealand CBA allows it at "Teams Style" events - those which have 8+ board segments.

Australian BF regulations are a bit more complex, but it seems "yellow sticker" (same definition as WBF and NZ) are rarely permitted in pairs events, and frequently permitted (except in early rounds) in events of 8+ board segments (usually teams events).

European Bridge League permits HUMs only at European Team Championships.

USBF follows ACBL regulations.

Chinese Taipei appears to ban HUMs at all levels (hard to tell, I couldn't find general systems regulations, had to look in CoCs for various contests).

Japan, I dunno - I seem to have lost whatever small ability I once had to read the language.

Singapore follows WBF regulations. Whether there are actually any events in Singapore that allow HUMs is unclear. They refer to "category 1", etc, but I couldn't find a specification of events as to category.

 

Generally speaking, it seems that "banned" is accurate in most places, and "restricted heavily" in those few places where "banned" does not apply. On balance, "banned" is pretty damn close.

[DrTodd13]

Jan...if it were shown that on average you could scramble over a FERT to a fit and play that to lose fewer points on average than whatever the opps could get by declaring would you concede that FERTs are sound and therefore not destructive?

[Cascade]

Destructive vs constructive methods

Jan Martel (it’s good to have people in such positions as hers participating in discussions like this)

Just as devising systems appeals to some, devising defenses has always been interesting to me. Guess that's why I was a good tax lawyer :rolleyes:. I do want to be clear though, that I'm not really a "regulator" - I may be better able than some of the forum regulars to get regulators to listen to me, but I don't make the rules.

argued that “Destructive methods are sort of like pornography - we all know them when we see them.”  (Digression: In Australia there has been a heated debate this year about whether exhibited photos of a nude, pubescent, teenage girl are art or pornography.)

 

All right, perhaps that was too flip. We've all been down this road so many times that we tend to get tired of repeating the same things over and over. But even you and other proponents of a strong pass system (and I am deliberately saying that and not "weak opening" - I don't have a problem with a system where opening bids are defined as 8-12 HCPs, it's the openings that are defined as 0-7, maybe 8, any shape that for me make strong pass so unusual and difficult to deal with), admit that the Fert bid, whatever it is, is not a constructive bid - it's there to allow you to have other bids, specifically pass, that don't include those hands, and as such you'll say it's constructive because it allows the other things. But as someone pointed out earlier, the reason to use 1♠ or 2♣ instead of P or 1♣ for the fert is to cause the opponents problems. There isn't any constructive reason to open 1♠ on hands in the 0-7 HCP range that aren't suitable for other bids. Similarly, a 2♥ opening that shows a weak 2 in either hearts or spades is a REALLY terrible bid for constructive bidding (I suspect that is the main reason that its proponents gave up on it). But it's also a terrible bid for the opponents to deal with (more about that later).

 

I think that reflects a bias about how one should play “a good game of bridge” ...

Neither the bridge scoring table nor the rules of bridge place a premium on one method beating absolute par over the other.  So, to claim that so-called constructive bidding (aiming to reach our best contract) is intrinsically better than so-called destructive bidding (aiming to disrupt the opponents from reaching their best contract) is a non-bridge judgement.  However, it is a widely held view and has been a critical factor influencing regulators.

 

As I said, I'm not a regulator, but I suspect you're right. Maybe it would be possible to have a parallel universe where this wasn't the prevailing view, but we live in this universe, and you're not likely to change that view.

As far as I can tell "destructive" is a term that is only used in North America.

 

I have looked at WBF, EBU, ABF, NZB regulations and there is nothing of that sort of concept explicit in any of those regulations.

 

I don't know the concept's genesis but it seems completely wrong to me in terms of how to play a game.

 

It is typical although an extreme example though of viewing bridge as a two-handed (me and my partner want to bid to our best contract) rather than a four-handed (we have to do that while coping with the interference of the opponents who are trying their best to not let us bid to our best contract) game.

 

I don't believe the view is widely held or prevailing except in North America and even there it is entirely possible (my speculation) that the view is only held by a minority who happen to be the group from which regulators are picked. Perhaps it is more pervasive than that. I suspect though that the majority do not care. And the experience in other parts of the world is that if the regulations were relaxed then they may well join in the fun of playing so-called destructive methods themselves.

[Cascade]

The problem is that most players who use these bids aren't going to be able to explain when they will choose to open one and when they will choose to open an alternative. Of course, that's worst when they have the option of passing, but it arises when they have 2 or more 0-7 bids available also. If you are going to be completely honest, you know that in choosing between, say, 1♦ showing 0-7 with 4 or more spades, and 1♠ showing 0-7 any, you'll sometimes open 1♠ even with a hand that has 4 spades. When? It will depend on lots of things - vulnerability, seat, state of the match, your judgment about how likely these particular opponents are to try to "get" you, where your few honors are located, who knows what else. It's those sorts of things that you aren't going to be able to define adequately. Or at least, that never are adequately defined when people submit descriptions of "destructive" bids.

Sorry Jan, none of these issues are specific in any way shape or form to forcing pass systems.

 

I agree completely that if you encounter specific pairs who practice poor disclosure this needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. Regretfully, I'm left with the distinct impression that you and others fixate on certain examples in order to support a pre-conceived agenda.

 

Case in point: The Jeff Rubens developed a hand evaluation algorithm called "Caution, Complex Competer Count" (CCCC) that was designed to approximate the hand evaluation style that Edgar Kaplan applied at the table. (Kaplan commented that the CCCC did an OK job; however, he also noted that individuals sholdn't try to use this algorithm at the table because it was much to complex)

 

Simply put, Kaplan was incapable of providing a compete description of his hand evaluation methods; yet somehow he was still permitted to play bridge. This occured because people understood that perfect disclosure is a theoretical goal, but not a practical consideration. We accept and understand that disclosure will, by necessity, often be approximate. We hope for more, but accept what is practical.

Excellent example.

[TimG]

The problem with that is that they may (I say may, because this particular bid is one that the opponents NEVER adequately describe) be more likely to have spades than hearts when they open 2♥.

I would contend that natural weak two-bids can never be adequately described, if you hold them to the same standard as the 2H opening to show either hearts or spades.

 

If a weak two-bid is described as 5-10 HCP, usually a 6-card suit or good 5-card suit, with an eye to vulnerability and position, we're doing just fine. If asked for clarification, we might say that opener seldom has a side 4-card major (and when he does it will be weak) and try to describe what we mean by "good" suit. Would we open Jxxx AQxxxx x xx 2H? Sure. What about J9xx KQTxxx x xx? Sure. J9xx KQ9xxx x xx? Probably not. Will my partner's judgment be exactly the same as mine? No. Might my judgment be a little different tomorrow? Possibly. This seems to me to be OK, but perhaps that it just because I haven't played at, and tried to describe these subtleties at, the highest levels.

 

Yet, it does not seem to me that if the 2H opening to show either hearts or spades was described to the same degree, leaving some judgment to the practitioners, that you would consider the method to have been described adequately.

 

We accept and understand that disclosure will, by necessity, often be approximate. We hope for more, but accept what is practical.

I think full disclosure is somewhat approximate by nature; judgment cannot be 100% quantified and explained. But, this does not mean that disclosure is imperfect. It just means that judgment cannot be codified, if it could we'd have computers doing some damn fine bidding.

 

I think we are in basic agreement, except that I would say an accurate approximation is full disclosure rather than a practical compromise.

[fred]

The problem with that is that they may (I say may, because this particular bid is one that the opponents NEVER adequately describe) be more likely to have spades than hearts when they open 2♥.

I would contend that natural weak two-bids can never be adequately described, if you hold them to the same standard as the 2H opening to show either hearts or spades.

 

If a weak two-bid is described as 5-10 HCP, usually a 6-card suit or good 5-card suit, with an eye to vulnerability and position, we're doing just fine. If asked for clarification, we might say that opener seldom has a side 4-card major (and when he does it will be weak) and try to describe what we mean by "good" suit. Would we open Jxxx AQxxxx x xx 2H? Sure. What about J9xx KQTxxx x xx? Sure. J9xx KQ9xxx x xx? Probably not. Will my partner's judgment be exactly the same as mine? No. Might my judgment be a little different tomorrow? Possibly. This seems to me to be OK, but perhaps that it just because I haven't played at, and tried to describe these subtleties at, the highest levels.

 

Yet, it does not seem to me that if the 2H opening to show either hearts or spades was described to the same degree, leaving some judgment to the practitioners, that you would consider the method to have been described adequately.

I think you missed that point that Jan was trying to make (probably because she did not spell it out completely, no doubt intentionally). I don't want to put the wrong words in her mouth, but Jan and I were both coaches of the same team when I (and maybe Jan) encountered the Multi 2H convention for the first time. If I recall correctly, we asked the pair using this convention via e-mail something like "when do you Pass when your partner opens 2H?" (an important thing to know in order to try to devise a sensible defense) and received an absurd answer like "no agreements".

 

To see why this is absurd (to put it kindly - "unfair" or "reprehensible" might be more accurate), consider an example that is probably closer to home for most of you:

 

You are playing Multi 2D (with no strong option) in a regular partnership. You open 2D and it goes Pass-Pass. You are asked "when would your partner Pass 2D?".

 

Hopefully you can see that, even if there is no mention of this in your system notes or an appropriate blank to fill in on your convention card, you have an agreement because you have a history of playing this convention with your partner. A reasonable answer might be: "He has only done that a few times, but he has always had long, strong diamonds, just like you would expect. If fact, if you balance and I have a diamond fit, I might raise." Fair enough.

 

To go one step further, perhaps you and your partner are clever enough to realize that one of the only good things about the Multi 2D convention is that when partner opens a non-vul 2D and you have a terrible hand, Passing tends to give your opponents a problem, especially if you are willing to Pass regardless of how many diamonds you have. If that is the case, it would be absurd/unfair/reprehensible not to tell your opponents about this even if it is not in your system notes or on your convention card.

 

It is not reasonable to respond "no agreements" and expect them to be as clever as you are and figure this out for themselves, especially considering that Multi 2D might be a completely alien convention to them.

 

The same goes for the Multi 2H opening. If you and your regular partner have played this convention for any reasonable amount of time, you will be able to provide some information (even if it is vague) about when 2H might be Passed even if you have no explicit agreement about this. For example, you might say something like "I have seen him Pass with his own heart suit, with long spades and short hearts, and with a variety of terrible hands when we are not vulnerable. Otherwise he will tend to bid 2S unlesss blah blah blah...".

 

Sure the opponents might be able to figure out that this is a reasonable strategy (if it even is - I just made it up without a great deal of thought and finished it with blah blah blah), but they should not have to. You should tell them because you know your own history (so you really do have an agreement). Besides that, why should the opponents assume that you agree with them in terms of what a reasonable strategy would be? Your know at least something about your strategy, based on history if nothing else, so you should tell them!

 

Similarly, from knowing your strategy the opponents might be able to figure out what Jan suggested - that if the Multi 2H bidder has a terrible hand it is more likely that his suit is spades than that his suit is hearts, but of course they shouldn't have to figure that out either. This is something else you know, even if you know it only implicitly from your history, and therefore it is something else you should be forthcoming about telling the opponents.

 

Of course this principle does not just apply to weird 2-bids. Natural bidders have the same obligation. If you are asked what kind of game try your partner made, it is not enough to say "natural" if you know from history that a proper answer would be "natural, but it is not rare for him to have a hand with which he was always planning on bidding game, but wants to inhibit an opening lead in that suit".

 

That being said, things like weird 2-bids and Ferts tend to lead to more "tactical situations" than one might find in a mostly natural system. Between that and the fact that these methods are likely to be unfamiliar to many opponents, those who play such methods should REALLY bend over backwards to fully disclose what they know. There is a good chance that what is obvious to them is not even close to being obvious to their opponents.

 

I am not suggesting that most such players fail to do that, despite the bad experience that Jan and I had with the Multi 2H pair.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[blackshoe]

I once had opponents make a completely normal auction, something like 1C-1H-3H-4NT-5D-6H. This pair happened to be playing "standard american" at the time, but I've also known them to play KS. Rather than look at their CC (okay, my bad, maybe) and because I wanted to be sure there were no subtle inferences I might be missing, I asked for an explanation of the auction. They called the director. In the ensuing discussion, the 1H bidder said "I don't have to explain what 3H means". Also, the director's first question to me was "which specific bid are you asking about?" - to which I replied "all of them". I never did get anything like full disclosure of this auction. I did find out what flavor BW they were using.

 

The point is that neither players nor directors know what their obligations are even in simple auctions.

[DrTodd13]

Fred. If the auction went 1♠ - 3♠ (limit raise) - pass, does it make any sense to ask for detailed descriptions on the type of hands that opener might pass with? The generic answer is "I used my judgement to determine that I think 3♠ is the best spot" or another answer is "not suitable for any other bid." Personally, I think the same standard for thoroughness of response should apply to both this auction (in the rare event the question were actually asked) and to the auction 2♥ (either major) - pass. In fact, I think this problem applies to asking for the explanation of almost any pass. I think if you find yourself resorting to comments like "it is just judgement that you aren't entitled to" on the first then that should be an acceptable answer for the second.

[TimG]

I think you missed that point that Jan was trying to make (probably because she did not spell it out completely, no doubt intentionally). I don't want to put the wrong words in her mouth, but Jan and I were both coaches of the same team when I (and maybe Jan) encountered the Multi 2H convention for the first time. If I recall correctly, we asked the pair using this convention via e-mail something like "when do you Pass when your partner opens 2H?" (an important thing to know in order to try to devise a sensible defense) and received an absurd answer like "no agreements".

I agree that "reprehensible" and "unfair" would be good descriptions for the "no agreements" response.

 

But, I get the impression that an explanation like:

"He has only done that a few times, but he has always had long, strong diamonds, just like you would expect. If fact, if you balance and I have a diamond fit, I might raise."

wouldn't really satisfy many opponents of unfamiliar methods (and more importantly, wouldn't satisfy the ACBL committee responsible for defense review). If I am wrong about that, I apologize.

 

When I submitted a defense to a transfer opening to the C&C Committee for approval, I described the transfer opening along these lines: a 1H opening shows a Standard American 1S opening (5+ spades, 11-21 HCP), responder bids exactly as he would over a standard 1S opening except that with a hand that would have passed 1S, he bids 1S. That was deemed inadequate by the committee, I had to spell out that a 1N response showed 6-10 HCP and was non-forcing, a 2S response showed 3+ spades with 6-10 HCP, a 3S response was invitational with 4+ spades, etc.

 

When I hear Jan complain that an adequate description of methods is impossible to obtain, I imagine that someone has described a method as I initially did the 1H transfer opening (which was deemed inadequate), not that they avoided their obligation with "no agreement".

[JanM]

Fred.  If the auction went 1♠ - 3♠ (limit raise) - pass, does it make any sense to ask for detailed descriptions on the type of hands that opener might pass with?  The generic answer is "I used my judgement to determine that I think 3♠ is the best spot" or another answer is "not suitable for any other bid."  Personally, I think the same standard for thoroughness of response should apply to both this auction (in the rare event the question were actually asked) and to the auction 2♥ (either major) - pass.  In fact, I think this problem applies to asking for the explanation of almost any pass.  I think if you find yourself resorting to comments like "it is just judgement that you aren't entitled to" on the first then that should be an acceptable answer for the second.

The thing everyone seems to be either ignoring or not recognizing in the multi 2♥ situation is that what hands responder will pass with defines what hands opener will open. For instance, if responder will bid 2♠ with some hand like Ax, Jx, Kxxxx, Kxxx, opener will be likely to open KQxxxx, x, xxx, xxx but not x, KQxxxx, xxx, xxx. On the other hand, if responder will pass with that hand, opener wouldn't open some goodish hands with spades. That's just not in the same universe as deciding whether to open a natural 2♥ with a 46 hand depending on the location of your honors.

 

I suppose that what hands opener will pass 1♠-3♠ with also defines what 3♠ is going to be bid on (for instance, if you are playing that 1♠ is 8-12, 3♠ limit would be a lot stronger than if 1♠ starts at 12). But we have different ways of finding out what sort of hands are opened 1♠ and usually it isn't the case that the hand might have 1 or 6 spades and 6 or 0 hearts.

 

When I submitted a defense to a transfer opening to the C&C Committee for approval, I described the transfer opening along these lines: a 1H opening shows a Standard American 1S opening (5+ spades, 11-21 HCP), responder bids exactly as he would over a standard 1S opening except that with a hand that would have passed 1S, he bids 1S. That was deemed inadequate by the committee, I had to spell out that a 1N response showed 6-10 HCP and was non-forcing, a 2S response showed 3+ spades with 6-10 HCP, a 3S response was invitational with 4+ spades, etc.

 

It's sort of funny that the thing that was missing from your description of "responses" is still missing when you add all those unnecessary definitions. What sort of hand will partner pass with? And that's important because the defense has to include what fourth hand's bids mean after 1♥-P-P.

 

Of course we can guess, as we can about what hands will pass multi 2♦ (for a long time, our written defense to multi included a different defense if it went 2♦-P-P and one of the opponents was Kit Woolsey, because we knew that he would pass multi with hands on which other people wouldn't even consider doing so, but now the rest of the world has almost caught up with him and the "Kit" defense is the only one we include), but our guesses will be less and less accurate the more unusual the method is, eventually getting to the point where vs multi 2♥ we honestly had no idea of what their approach would be (and neither did they - they had just decided it would be amusing to play it and hadn't had any experience actually doing so).

[Free]

2008 soon ends. From start point nearly 28 years passed. Say ban started in 1990. So 18 years passed. May someone tells me the benefit of such a discussion? Do we really all have credit to WBF?

 

Are there anyone who can lift this topic to water cooler please?

First of all, they're not banned, but restricted heavily.

 

Second: what gives you the right to claim this topic should be moved to the water cooler? There are many people who are interested in this topic.

 

Third: people have been working centuries at laws and regulations in regular life, and they keep changing. Why would regulations never change in bridge? Just because some philosophy is currently accepted? Perhaps some people at the top suddenly get an open mind about this and decide to allow HUMs. You never know...

Agree with your second and third points, but as to the first:

 

WBF defines "Forcing Pass" (or whatever you want to call it) as a HUM, yellow sticker, system. It is allowed only in Category 1 events (i.e., the Bermuda Bowl and Venice Cup), and banned in all others.

ACBL prohibits it at all levels.

EBU prohibits it at all levels.

New Zealand CBA allows it at "Teams Style" events - those which have 8+ board segments.

Australian BF regulations are a bit more complex, but it seems "yellow sticker" (same definition as WBF and NZ) are rarely permitted in pairs events, and frequently permitted (except in early rounds) in events of 8+ board segments (usually teams events).

European Bridge League permits HUMs only at European Team Championships.

USBF follows ACBL regulations.

Chinese Taipei appears to ban HUMs at all levels (hard to tell, I couldn't find general systems regulations, had to look in CoCs for various contests).

Japan, I dunno - I seem to have lost whatever small ability I once had to read the language.

Singapore follows WBF regulations. Whether there are actually any events in Singapore that allow HUMs is unclear. They refer to "category 1", etc, but I couldn't find a specification of events as to category.

 

Generally speaking, it seems that "banned" is accurate in most places, and "restricted heavily" in those few places where "banned" does not apply. On balance, "banned" is pretty damn close.

You forgot Belgium where it's allowed at the top 2 leagues in competition. But "banned" is not extremely wrong I must admit :P

[H_KARLUK]

May truth be unpalatable?

 

Is not it time to pull away of the foundational assumptions ? Either 18 or 28 years passed since HUM's ban and bar.

 

Where's th universal validity?

 

Or it's just a Chinese tactic? "Use attack as the tactic of defense”

 

Umm but they also believe to “Outside noisy, inside empty”.

[jdonn]

A little late but I too apologize for my earlier behavior.

 

Todd I'm really not trying to pick on you, but I don't think your point about 1♠-3♠ is a good example. I'll try to explain why. Let me take an example of 1NT-3NT instead (because it will be easier for me to explain, and I think you would agree the same reasoning applies.)

 

If you ask most people what 3NT means, I think it's generally fine they say something like "I think I'll make game" or "I used my judgment to determine this would most likely be our highest scoring contract" or something. But that's because they expect to make what they bid, in other words 3NT is never really bid for tactical reasons. But let's say there is a pair that also bids 3NT on 0 counts just in case their opponents have game. If you ask THAT pair about 3NT then I definitely believe they should say something like "to play, but sometimes bid as an advance-sacrifice in case the opponents have game." In other words, I think whenever "this is the highest scoring contract I expect we can make" or something similar is part of the explanation, that speaks for itself, but tactical possibilities should also be mentioned if they are expected in the partnership.

 

Now take a pair opening 2♥ as weak with either major. Suppose for this pair that sometimes they might pass 2♥ because responder has long hearts, sometimes because responder suspects opener has hearts, and sometimes when responder is short in both majors as a confusion tactic. When asked, they should make sure to (at least briefly) cover the tactical possibilities. "When we think opener has hearts, or when responder has long hearts, or sometimes on hands short in both majors in hopes you can't figure out which major we have." I don't consider this to be holding them to a different standard than "standard-system" players since I would expect the same out of my second 1NT-3NT pair. The fact I wouldn't expect it out of most people who bid 1NT-3NT (or a pair explaining the hands they respond 3NT to-play with opposite a fert, as long as it's bid with an honest hope of making 3NT) does not, to me, mean I am holding them to a different standard.

 

I don't claim this to be any part of the laws, but it really seems to me the most fair way for things to be done.

[hrothgar]

The thing everyone seems to be either ignoring or not recognizing in the multi 2♥ situation is that what hands responder will pass with defines what hands opener will open. For instance, if responder will bid 2♠ with some hand like Ax, Jx, Kxxxx, Kxxx, opener will be likely to open KQxxxx, x, xxx, xxx but not x, KQxxxx, xxx, xxx. On the other hand, if responder will pass with that hand, opener wouldn't open some goodish hands with spades. That's just not in the same universe as deciding whether to open a natural 2♥ with a 46 hand depending on the location of your honors.

You are still fixating on the wrong set of issues

 

I'm sure you have plenty of well rehersed anecdotes about some pair that played some horrible Brown Sticker Convention and practiced poor disclosure. No one disputes that this happens.

 

I happen to have plenty horror stories about pairs playing natural methods (or worse yet methods that they think are natural). Do you want to hear them all???

I sincerely doubt it...

 

I think that we both recognize that annecdotal evidence is just that... annecdotal.

 

From my perspective, the real issue is that that there are no good standards regarding what consitutes adequate disclosure. (I don't believe that there are even any particularly good examples)

 

The way to solve this problem is to define clear standard.

Apply them consistently

Punish people who fail to meet the standards

 

I can even recommend how to design a real disclosure system for methods that require pre-disclosure.

 

Add a requirement that pairs provide a representative sample of hands that qualify for a given bid. Ideally, this sample should be based on real world play. If the pair in questions has recently changed methods and can not provide a historical record allow them to submit the output of a monte carlo simulation.

 

I think that this type of system is quite workable. I'm sure others can suggest modifications or alternative structures.

 

Implementing this type of system is how you go and solve disclosure problems.

 

Its really quite sad that so many people prefer to fixate on bidding methods rather than the disclosure process. (Especially when they are the ones who can actually effect the disclosure proces)

[TimG]

When I submitted a defense to a transfer opening to the C&C Committee for approval, I described the transfer opening along these lines: a 1H opening shows a Standard American 1S opening (5+ spades, 11-21 HCP), responder bids exactly as he would over a standard 1S opening except that with a hand that would have passed 1S, he bids 1S. That was deemed inadequate by the committee, I had to spell out that a 1N response showed 6-10 HCP and was non-forcing, a 2S response showed 3+ spades with 6-10 HCP, a 3S response was invitational with 4+ spades, etc.

 

It's sort of funny that the thing that was missing from your description of "responses" is still missing when you add all those unnecessary definitions. What sort of hand will partner pass with? And that's important because the defense has to include what fourth hand's bids mean after 1♥-P-P.

As stated above: with a hand that would have passed a standard 1S opening, responder bids 1S. The auction 1H-P-P never occurs.

 

I would like to have an approved defense for a non-forcing transfer opening, but I stipulated that the 1H opening was forcing to 1S to avoid this issue during the approval process.

[fred]

Fred.  If the auction went 1♠ - 3♠ (limit raise) - pass, does it make any sense to ask for detailed descriptions on the type of hands that opener might pass with?

Although I don't recall ever having been asked a question like this before the opening lead was made (and agree that the answer to such a question would likely only be helpful if the opening leader was GIB), there are certainly times in which a similar question might be asked (and the answer might be very useful) later in the play. For example:

 

Do you tend to open 5332 11-counts?

 

In my current regular partnership the answer, perhaps a strange one nowadays, would be "no - especially if we are vulnerable".

 

The opponents are entitled to this information and it is not hard to imagine how this information might help the defenders to piece together the unseen hands.

 

Similarly they might want to know:

 

- That our weak 2-bids tend to be very sound, especially vulnerable. If the bidding goes 1S-3S-P we are unlikely to have a 6322 11-count because, unlike most pairs these days, we would tend to open 2S with such a hand.

 

- That our partnership style is to almost always accept a limit raise when we are dealt a small singleton (especially vulnerable), even if our hand is very minimum in terms of HCPs.

 

- That we tend to heavily devalue singleton Kings, Queens, and Jacks in deciding whether or not to open when we are dealt a close hand.

 

- That we also care about things like defensive strength, points in our long suits, good spot cards, having a strong 5-card suit, having at least one Ace... in terms of deciding whether or not to open when we are dealt a close hand. Not everyone cares about all of these things.

 

All of these factors might be important for a defender and all would fall out of my answer to your hypothetical question (mostly in the form of "he would not have that sort of hand").

 

So I can definitely see scenarios where it would make sense for an opponent to ask the question that you pose (though I agree that such a question would probably not be phrased quite the way you express it).

 

Still, I think the question regarding when someone might Pass Multi is different. Most of what you read above relates to hand evaluation and partnership style whereas the question of when to Pass Multi is more about tactics.

 

Fundamentally, however, I think one important thing is the same: you should tell them what you know.

 

Fred Gitelman

Bridge Base Inc.

www.bridgebase.com

[DrTodd13]

To some degree, I think that tactical considerations can be a part of any call (bid or pass). For certain, some calls are more likely to have tactical considerations than others. Another certainty is that no disclosure system can be perfect and so you have to pick some happy medium between accuracy and timeliness. In the end, I'd like to be able to say that agreements must be disclosed but the factors on which one bases one's judgment need not be. Unfortunately, I don't think this division is clear cut so you're stuck with a gray area. Personally, though, I don't find a pass of this 2♥ bid to be in such a gray area. If you don't have the judgment as to what kind of hands would pass 2♥ then I don't believe it is their job to educate you. Think it through, run some simulations, play it for yourself and develop your own judgment. A good-hearted jab at Fred here might be that if he thought some passes might require explanation (disclosure) then he should have provided the ability to provide explanations for passes in FullDisclosure. :)